Skip to main content

About your Search

20121222
20121230
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)
. and, of course, their own country, lawyers have experience a lot of pain in the civil rights movement. so my question is, in line with the comment about practical steps, what would be a facing of the introduction of the rule of law that might be suggested to the chinese government and to chinese political and legal leaders as a way to avoid these calamitous events and bring about the rule of law? >> can you suggest to them that they pay the judges and say we will reducers our, we won't fire you? they might be willing to do that. and after they did that, you know, judges would love it, and nobody else would like it. but i mean, they would do, or maybe they would say we have an administrative law grow here. by the way, let's have all the corporate cities on television. the proceeding, i'm not saying the deliberations. why don't he they do that? let's not get into that. 5 let's have the trials and all those things. they do that. maybe they would, or maybe, what about this arbitration resolving business differences, would you be willing to take some the judges? after all, you're not payin
look at the civil rights movement, that started with emmittville, montgomery. montgomery was supposed to be a boycott. people on the ground who begin to drive this issue. the conversation can't start in washington. washington is an aftereffect. it has to start with the people in various places driving them to move. if that doesn't happen, they will not move. >> you're absolutely right. that is the history of movements in america. but there is going to be a bill we know senator dianne feinstein is going to introduce a bill on the first day of the new congress. why shouldn't more folks get behind that, including some republicans? because i'd like to remind you of one thing. justice scalia said in the heller decision, like most rights the second amendment is not unlighted. -- not unlimited. he said, it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever for whatever purpose. from the high priest of the supreme court of conservatism himself. why doesn't that create some room for current conservatives like ronald reagan did in 1994 to back an assault weapons ban
disputes. things like the civil rights fights of the 1960s. now it is routine. it requires really 60 votes to do anything in the senate. we have this intense level of party line voting with the filibuster. it's like a parliament system without majority rule. then you have the informal analog to that in the house which the majority party says, we're not going to bring anything up. it has to have 218 votes but it has to have a majority of the majority which gives a veto to the republican wing of the conservative party. that's where we'restick stuck right now. >> let's bring in lisa dejardan. is there in this particular case -- >> reporter: i'm hesitant to get into it because it gets into senate procedure. the simplest would be if the leaders agree not to invoke that 60-vote requirement. if they agree a majority would be enough. for that to work, the rest of the senate would then have to essentially allow it to. there would have to be no one that attempts a filibuster. that's the easiest way to get around the 60 votes. another way is to possibly use some sort of budget measure that could be p
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)